20 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhiteheadDon't know. Bloody stupid though.
Is the requirement that women cover their boobs at a public swimming pool sexist?
Actually: yes.
If men don't have to, then yes... it is sexist.
And to whoever posted that it's only sexist if only one sex complains about it: moron.
20 Apr 17
Originally posted by twhitehead"How on earth did you come to that ridiculous conclusion?"
How on earth did you come to that ridiculous conclusion? By removing her from there air, she is in fact forced not to wear that cleavage on air. But sexism doesn't have to involve forcing someone to wear or not wear something, so the conclusion is illogical.
[b]you can discuss on the other hand if the parents were sexist.
That WAS the question be ...[text shortened]... remains that her gender was a most definite part of the particular 'code of morality' involved.[/b]
was covering another topic before another made that claim just to make sure that wouldn't become the issue. if you are not interested in discussing that, bloody ignore it.
"By removing her from there air, she is in fact forced not to wear that cleavage on air."
she is invited to a private show not a public place, that private show has the right to set conditions. the private show isn't required to give her a platform to do whatever she wants.
if i have a restaurant and i require my staff to wear an uniform that looks the same regardless of gender, conditions they know prior to being hired, i am not sexist. if a female employer changes that uniform into a bikini, i am not sexist for firing her. i am sexist if i ask a female to do that and i am very sexist if i don't ask the men to do the same.
"But sexism doesn't have to involve forcing someone to wear or not wear something"
no, it doesn't have to. depends on each case. it's not a simple concept you can define in 10 words.
"so the conclusion is illogical."
doesn't follow.
"That WAS the question being asked in 1."
and i got to that as well.
[/b]"Whatever 'one could argue', the fact remains that her gender was a most definite part of the particular 'code of morality' involved."[/b]
the reason matters, like i said (and you ignored). the group that demanded her removal did so on a matter of morality. are you claiming they would have ignored brad pitt in a banana hammock if he appeared instead? not everything having to do with women is sexist. which you know damn well but you just like being obtuse.
20 Apr 17
1 edit
Originally posted by ZahlanziThis isn't about the legality of it, this is about whether it is sexist.
she is invited to a private show not a public place, that private show has the right to set conditions. the private show isn't required to give her a platform to do whatever she wants.
i am sexist if i ask a female to do that and i am very sexist if i don't ask the men to do the same.
Exactly. So you proved yourself wrong.
the reason matters, like i said (and you ignored). the group that demanded her removal did so on a matter of morality. are you claiming they would have ignored brad pitt in a banana hammock if he appeared instead? not everything having to do with women is sexist. which you know damn well but you just like being obtuse.
Morality is inherently sexist as I said at the beginning. Morality discriminates by sex. Although the definition suggests that discrimination be disadvantageous, it is not a necessary requirement I think for the term to apply.
I could be wrong that that is acceptable use. And I agree that morality is the main issue in the OP not sexism.
20 Apr 17
I agree that issues of clothing and women are often motivated by "morality" rather than sexism.
In Olympic gymnastics, the bottom-half of a woman's leotard covers much less than the same area of a male gymnast's uniform. To my knowledge, Speedo's or similar clothing aren't allowed for men, even in Olympic volleyball. The main reason is most cultures frown upon male genitalia being visible (diving being an exception). No one considers banning men from wearing Speedo uniforms "sexist", even when women wear outfits that seems French-cut. The issue, then, is more a matter of morality.
I think it's the same, often times, with restrictions on womens-wear. People are just too easily drawn to assumptions of sexism.
Naturally, many cases of restrictions on women's-wear are indeed driven by sexism as well.
20 Apr 17
1 edit
Originally posted by twhitehead"This isn't about the legality of it, this is about whether it is sexist. "
This isn't about the legality of it, this is about whether it is sexist.
[b]i am sexist if i ask a female to do that and i am very sexist if i don't ask the men to do the same.
Exactly. So you proved yourself wrong.
the reason matters, like i said (and you ignored). the group that demanded her removal did so on a matter of morality. are yo ...[text shortened]... g that that is acceptable use. And I agree that morality is the main issue in the OP not sexism.
i wasn't making it about legality.
"Exactly. So you proved yourself wrong."
elaborate. how have i proven myself wrong. does sesame street invite men and allow them to perform in speedoes and thongs? does it oil them up?
"Morality is inherently sexist as I said at the beginning"
that's stupid. it is sexist if it is aimed at women and not at men. if it treats both genders equally is not sexist.
"Although the definition suggests that discrimination be disadvantageous, it is not a necessary requirement I think for the term to apply."
this is just a filler to increase the word count of your argument.
"I could be wrong that that is acceptable use. And I agree that morality is the main issue in the OP not sexism"
at least you're honest you are rambling with no particular aim.